Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Baloney Boehner

Recs

9

December 19, 2012 – Comments (52) | RELATED TICKERS: B , UL , L

So today Boehner comes out and says the House will pass a bill that keeps the Bush tax cuts for 99.81% of the people and if it doesn't get enacted into law President Obama will be the one responsible for the greatest tax hike in history.

Sorry Boehner people aren't that stupid.  There already is a bill YOU are keeping from the floor that would extend those tax rates on 98% of us.  You don't need to pass another bill and try to fool the Country as to who is really at fault.

The bottom line is simple, The House Republicans will get the blame if they keep this game of brinksmanship up.  Pass the bill you are blocking from being voted on already and stop using the Country hostage so your rich buddies get to keep more of their money.

52 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 19, 2012 at 7:32 PM, SuntanIronMan (99.93) wrote:

Nope, nope and nope.

They are ALL to blame for anything that happens. Democrats, Republicans, Representatives, Senators and the President. Every last one of them. No exceptions. None of them will get off the hock for this one.

Just get the hell out of the way. Businesses don't need politicians to succeed, but businesses can sure be hurt by politicians constantly erecting these Washington-contrived roadblocks. Just get the hell out of our way.

Report this comment
#2) On December 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM, SuntanIronMan (99.93) wrote:

*businesses and people

Report this comment
#3) On December 19, 2012 at 7:48 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Well I kind of am inlcined with the tune of your reply but there already is a bill, passed by the Senate which the House agrees with as well but Boehner won't bring it to the floor.  All he has to do is do that, fiscal cliff neutralized.  Then all sides can duke it out over the rest.

But I don't like being held hostage so rich people can stay richer.

Report this comment
#4) On December 20, 2012 at 2:57 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

(BUD alert)

If it's a question, over higher taxes...

ONES  FOR HIGHER TAXES @ 1M

OTHERS FOR HIGHER TAXES @ 400K.

So, what's the freakin' difference Man?

Report this comment
#5) On December 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, ikkyu2 (99.17) wrote:

What have you got against baloney?  It's nourishing, unlike the empty rhetoric floating around the Capitol.

Report this comment
#6) On December 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM, RallyCry (< 20) wrote:

My prediction: They will settle on 500K.  The president will move up to meet the Republicans demands. I think most people would agree if you make 500K a year, there's a pretty high likelihood you are rich. 

Report this comment
#7) On December 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM, miteycasey (30.29) wrote:

Living in the midwest and love visiting Vegas I always wondered why prices were so high. There are a few reasons, but the one that I realized probably most responsible was people coming from California on a vacation were use to paying these prices.

When it came to raising taxes on people making 250K in the midwest I'd be okay with that beacuse 250K goes a long way, but on the coasts, NYC/San Fran specifically, 250K doesn't go that far.

Having said that I could agree on $500K.  

Report this comment
#8) On December 20, 2012 at 11:21 AM, miteycasey (30.29) wrote:

awallejr

 

People are that stupid.  IF Boehner can get bill passed in the house then he can say he did something, much like how Omama is saying he's doing nothing. Even though most informed people know his bill has no chance and is theatre.

Report this comment
#9) On December 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

I totally agree awallejr. the american people are not stupid and know omama will not agree to anything that will even slightly curb his uncontrolled spending. he is the president of compromise as long as he dictates what the compromise is.

Report this comment
#10) On December 20, 2012 at 3:52 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

I'm just tired of being used. According to Obama they are 200 billion apart.  Split the difference and call it a day already.  But this whole "plan B" tactic is a complete waste of time.

Report this comment
#11) On December 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Yeah the whole comprimise thing sucks when its not everything that your side wants.

Let it play out, and blame both sides if it doesn't happen. 

I actually am more optimistic now that both sides made a little more movement, but I would have prefered more spending cuts even from Boehner's proposal. 

Report this comment
#12) On December 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

My side isn't even being represented here.  I'd tax any 9 figured salary at a 95% rate.  I would treat stock awards as ordinary income charged at its fair market value.  Same with "carried interest."

Report this comment
#13) On December 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

God I hate Motley Fool. We still can't thumbs up comments and ikkyu2's is priceless.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#14) On December 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM, zman4money (< 20) wrote:

Im sorry awallejr, but The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics failed years ago.  You are living in a faulty imagination if you believe anyone can be taxed at a 95% rate.  

Report this comment
#15) On December 21, 2012 at 12:17 AM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

I dunno, ever bid on something on Ebay and then hope someone outbids you?

Report this comment
#16) On December 21, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Melaschasm (53.59) wrote:

The republicans are slowly caving in, just as I predicted.  Why are you still hammering this issue?

Report this comment
#17) On December 21, 2012 at 2:13 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Sorry but I am a "show me" guy.  I will believe it when I see it.  But as for "caving in" caving in from what?  From protecting the rich?  These guys keep creating these deadlines on themselves.  It started with the debt ceiling and then agreeing to sequester which now they are trying to undo.

And now this "fiscal cliff" which again these guys created.  There is no urgent need to agree upon a "grand plan."  Diffuse the cliff and work on any greater plan next year after the new Congress is installed.

 

Report this comment
#18) On December 21, 2012 at 5:15 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

So a 95% tax rate on the rich will do it for you?

 

A Winston Churchill quote comes to mind....

We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. 

 

Report this comment
#19) On December 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Read what I said, I said income over $100,000,000 a year at 95%.  You can have a sliding scale going down. 

I don't want to hear how that person deserves it.  It would stop all these directors and CEOs from giving themselves extravagent salaries and stock options and bonus's at the shareholders' expense.  I guarantee you that you could live extremely well on say a "measely" $10,000,000 a year.

You were the one who had issues with the Rockerfellars and Carnegie's seemingly in that Buffett thread.  And I agree.  Too much power in the hands of a few standing on the backs of the masses is not  desireable in my opinion.

Report this comment
#20) On December 21, 2012 at 5:57 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Yeah, I read exactly what you said. I also understand economics and realize that the guy you taxed 95% left and took his jobs with him and now we lost his tax dollars and the people that he used to employ. Thanks for having a vendetta that makes life worse for the rest of us.

Instead of trying to "make them pay!" try to look for an answer that works. It's right there if you want to look for it.

Report this comment
#21) On December 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Yeah well Chris here's a link:

 http://www.google.com/url?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States%23History_of_top_rates&rct=j&q=highest+us+income+brackets+tax&usg=AFQjCNEfQkF_7MEiCi-mzf3o3_OKYSE-5Q&sa=X&ei=NPDUUKLEGbCn0AHr44HQBg&ved=0CD8QygQwAg&cad=rja

The Country did quite well in mid to late 40's and those rates were even higher back then when adjusted to 2011. And you understand economics so well that apparently you have missed what has been happening, namely the exact OPPOSITE has happened.  Those guys have been taking all those jobs out of this country while enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in history.

It isn't about making them pay.  It is about changing the path this Country is now taking.  We have created a small "haves" group at the expense of pretty much everyone else.  You are worried about .19% of the people?  99.81% don't even make one million.

Poverty has increased.  The middle class is decreasing.  We pander to a small group of people and call the downtrodden leeches.  Cry me a river.

Report this comment
#22) On December 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Yeah you understand economics. Read this. This highest year was 1944 at 94% And it was a tax on paper only, because nobody actually paid it.

Poverty is increasing and the middle class is decreasing because rather on focusing on making things, increasing our GDP and making our exports higher than our imports, we try to be communists and redistibute wealth. zman4money hit the nail on the head. It's been tried before and it doesn't work.

It's like you are taking money out of your right pocket and putting it in your left pocket and pretending that you have more money. You simply cannot tax yourself into prosperity! It is impossible.

Now the pandering to special interest groups is something that you can fix and that would help the economy. Let me give you just one example with Monsanto...

Toby Moffett

Monsanto Consultant

US Congessman

D-CT

Dennis DeConcini

Monsanto 
Legal Counsel

US Senator

D-AZ

Margaret Miller

Chemical Lab Supervisor

Dep. Dir. FDA, 
HFS

Bush Sr,
Clinton

Marcia Hale

Director, Int'l 
Govt. Affairs

White House 
Senior Staff

Clinton

Mickey Kantor

Board Member

Sec. of Commerce

Clinton

Virginia Weldon

VP, Public Policy

WH-Appt to CSA, Gore's SDR

Clinton

Josh King

Director, Int'l 
Govt. Affairs

White House Communications

Clinton

David Beler

VP, Gov't & Public Affairs

Gore's Chief Dom. 
Polcy Advisor

Clinton

Carol Tucker-Foreman

Monsanto Lobbyist

WH-Appointed Consumer Adv

Clinton

Linda Fisher

VP, Gov't & Public Affairs

Deputy Admin 
EPA

Clinton, 
Bush

Lidia Watrud

Manager, New Technologies

USDA, EPA

Clinton,
Bush, Obama

Michael Taylor

VP, Public Policy

Dep. Commiss. FDA

Obama

Hilary Clinton

Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel

US Senator,
Secretary of State

D-NY
Obama

Roger Beachy

Director, Monsanto Danforth Center

Director USDA NIFA

Obama

Islam Siddiqui

Monsanto Lobbyist

Ag Negotiator
Trade Rep

Obama

 Is it possible that any of these people may have a conflict of interest?

What happens is that you wind up with stuff like this and this.

If you really want to change our path, start focusing on limiting the power of a corrupt government and limiting government spending and opening the market to fair competition and get rid of these government protections.

The middle class will then be able to support themselves again with more income andless tax dollars coming out of their pockets. Asking them to surrender to being supported by rich people drives them further into poverty and is unsustainable.

Report this comment
#23) On December 22, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Melaschasm (53.59) wrote:

#17  If by those guys you mean Obama, the democrats, and the republicans, then you are correct.  The fiscal cliff was created as a compromise between various politicians.  Now both sides want to make changes to the previous compromise, so they are pretending that we have some terrible situation that needs to be fixed.  

If Obama was worried about the fiscal cliff, he could have compromised with the republicans to change the law a month ago.  Instead he is holding out for almost complete victory on this issue.  That is his right as president, but I thought he might have learned his lesson from Obamacare.  The longer he waits, the more he gets on the fiscal cliff issue, but the less political capital he will have for other parts of his agenda.  

If the fiscal cliff is such a big deal, why did Obama sign it into law, and then wait until after the election to try to fix it?  Obama had almost two years to make changes to the fiscal cliff, but waited until the last minute to suggest making any changes.  

Report this comment
#24) On December 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Except Chris that is the POINT of placing a high limit because only truly greedy idiots would take it and pay it.  You want them to either leave it in the business (and then maybe give others a raise or hire another person) or encourage deductions (like the charitable contribution or why not business meals etc to spur gdp).  You can also limit deductions if they are being abused.

But I am responding to this point of yours:

 "the guy you taxed 95% left and took his jobs with him and now we lost his tax dollars and the people that he used to employ."

The guy I taxed stayed.  He did what I have stated and the economy boomed. The guy YOU didn't tax was the one who took the jobs out of the country.  His low tax rate incentivizes him to squeeze maximum profits since he gets to keep a good chunk of it.

Poverty is increasing and the middle class is shrinking is because your CEOs and Directors are encouraged to keep as much as they can get away with. And since labor is the single largest expense of most businesses guess who gets squeezed?

I can post Dumber's OWS charts again if you wish.

You don't have to convince me about special interest groups I am on the same page as you there. I am also in agreement with governmental abuse and corruption.  But in the end it tends to boil down to money.  That greases the wheels, for good or bad.  I just want to start capping things.  Because once you cap then you will see the tide rising for the masses.

But that is just my opinion.

 

Report this comment
#25) On December 22, 2012 at 7:10 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Actually President Obama continues to take my advice Mela.  He isn't looking for total victory.  He came out afterwards and said he is willing to do what I said here:

 "There is no urgent need to agree upon a "grand plan."  Diffuse the cliff and work on any greater plan next year after the new Congress is installed."

Report this comment
#26) On December 22, 2012 at 7:31 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

awallejr again your concept of economics fails you. If you tax prosperity, you will decrease prosperity.

If you tax hamburgers, you will decrease sales of hamburgers.

The guy you taxed 95% left. He has absolutely no incentive to stay. There are plenty of countries more than willing not to tax him 95%. Why care about the profit of a business that you don't get any reward from? Again, what you want is communism and it has already been proven not to work.

Why would he invest anything in employees or equipment in a company that he gets no benefit from if he improves?

The economy will not boom in that scenario, it will sink. There is no incentive for anyone to create jobs or even stay in the country when that happens.

Yes deductions are being abused and I personally think we should get rid of all of them.

Executive compensation is a huge problem, but it is a problem that should be policed by stockholders, not the government. I have talked before about the CEO's compensation package measured as a multiple of the lowest paid employee's compensation package.

You really want to tax the rich? Get rid of the income tax and corporate tax all together and replace it with a national sales tax.  When then rich guy buys a yacht he pays through the nose. When he keeps it in his business, he pays nothing.

Again, the answer is there if you are willing to look for it. The answer you propose is just a bigger problem.

 

Report this comment
#27) On December 22, 2012 at 7:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

I just thought of this...

In awallejr's economy a New Yorker that wins 100 mil in the lottery will pay the Fed government 95 mil and the state government 8.97 mil and therefore be 3.97 mil in the hole and would have been better off not buying the ticket.

Sounds like booming economy to me. 

Report this comment
#28) On December 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, RouteReflector (29.11) wrote:

That's not really the way a progressive tax system (our tax system) works.

 

If a hypothetical $100 million tax bracket is set at 95%, and John Doe wins $100 million, the grand total of that income that would be taxed at 95% is $0.00.  If he won $101 million, then roughly $910,000 would be taxed at 95% - the $1 million that falls in the 95% tax bracket minus the write-off of state taxes.

Report this comment
#29) On December 22, 2012 at 11:29 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Chris I can only point to history.  Taxing deductions and exemptions are designed to influence behavior.  It is as simple as that.  We give deductions to charities because we want people to give to charities.  We give deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes because we want to encourage home ownership.

You tax into oblivion a certain amount of income, personally I say make it 99.99% over $100 million dollars a year, because it becomes pointless then for people to declare and take that much.  It doesn't chase them away. They just don't take it and use it back into the business which is a good thing in my opinion. It certainly didnt hurt during what many call the "glory years" of the late 40s, 1950s. 

There is plenty incentive.  They would still want to earn $100 million a year.  If they want to leave then so long, some one else will be there.  You really think Steve Jobs cared about making billions?  You ask those pioneers and they will tell you it was "for the love of the game" that motivated them.

You put caps and there is nowhere else for the money to go to but down, which is what you want.  You keep taxes low for the rich and we saw what happened since the turn of the century. They screwed the Average Joe.  Because we gave them the incentive to do so.

Trust me Chris there is plenty incentive.  99.81% of the people would love the chance to earn $100 million a year, especially since they don't even earn $1 million.

I will ask you this, show where during our history that the middle class actually thrived during low tax rates for the top earners?  Don't say Reagan because the middle class has been declining as a class during his terms. Some eye opening charts:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=middle%20class%20growth%20charts&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanprogress.org%2Fissues%2Feconomy%2Fnews%2F2012%2F08%2F30%2F33600%2F5-charts-on-the-state-of-the-middle-class%2F&ei=T4fWUOOjHOjV0gGd0oGwAg&usg=AFQjCNGPoMAO3pAnlcdB3W_17NN55yM9Gg

As for a national tax system that is a topic for another thread heheh.

Report this comment
#30) On December 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Correct route reflector, but somehow I'm betting that the other $100 mil would be taxed closer to 95% than 0% and we forgot Social Security, the Obamacare tax, Sales taxes, and the corporate tax that gets handed down the consumer. Not to mention other misc State and Local taxes. 

awallejr that is pretty easy. We soared as an economy before the income tax even existed. You should look at your own charts in that link you provided and compare to a chart of government spending over the same time-frame. You'll then have your answer of why the middle class is declining. If you try to put the middle class in a position of being totally supported by the rich, you'll succeed in driving them straight to poverty. The answer to help the Middle class is less government, not taking even more money out of the private sector. 

Especially look at charts #4 and #5. In chart #4 everything in that chart increased directly because of government intervention. I'm sure, given your job, you at least understand how that worked with the housing bubble. In chart #5 what do you think happens to debt levels when we take even more money out of the private sector? Are debt levels going to magically go down?

Your charts prove my point more than they prove you own point. 

If you really want to save the middle class, cut spending and government intervention in the market and you'll fix both middle class income and middle class debt.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#31) On December 23, 2012 at 10:47 AM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Chris I can only point to history.  Taxing deductions and exemptions are designed to influence behavior.  It is as simple as that.  We give deductions to charities because we want people to give to charities.  We give deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes because we want to encourage home ownership.

Influencing behaivor is not the government's strong suit. Would not people donate more to charity and be more inclined to purchase a home if they have more money in thier pocket?

 

Also I love how we call it a progressive tax system. That term is about as laughable as it gets. Our tax system is extremely regressive and we try to make it more and more regressive every day. Obamacare is just one more example.

Report this comment
#32) On December 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Actually I like this chart even better:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=unions%20and%20declining%20middle%20class%20charts&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fduanegraham.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2F05%2Funions-and-the-middle-class-decline%2F&ei=0HHXUJGcCa3U0gGK6IDIDA&usg=AFQjCNGrpL5Sql0gFn5RnLal7zck4n8hRQ

The economy did soar prior to the income tax but not for the masses.  Your Rockerfeller, Carnegie and JP Morgan types did the flourishing.

You list all the other taxes I keep mentioning to the Kudlowite con artists who just use the term income tax to make it seem like much of the country doesn't pay into revenue.

We have done everything to break the backs of the Average Joes.  And we do it by selling them a con job that the rich create jobs and deserve the tax breaks.  While I am probably starting to repeat here but history has just proven the opposite since the turn of the century.

Lowest tax rates for the rich and they shipped the jobs over seas because they get to keep 85% of the profits.  Cap them and the incentive to squeeze out profits at the expense of the workers diminishes.  It really is that simple.  We saw that in the late 40s-50s.  The answer for the middle class is to stop incentivizing the corporate raiding that is going on.

I am also for decreasing the public sector.  Put a hire freeze on and only get to add 1 new employee after 2 leave or retire.

I want stock options and carry forward interest treated as ordinary income.

I am making a prediction that sooner or later the masses are going to wake up and realize that they have the power (through voting) to pretty much boot out the current power structure and get rid of the ruling class. Sooner or later they will start to realize that they are being played for suckers.

 

Report this comment
#33) On December 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Unions killed union jobs. They definately killed the auto industry to the point that we had to rob retirees holding their bonds to keep them afloat.

Tax rates don't ship jobs overseas, over-regulation and labor costs ship jobs overseas.

Cap them in this country and the enite company moves overseas. Why be taxed 95% here when you can be taxed 10% somewhere else?

Companies like Google have billions in profits in other countries that could be helping our economy right now but those funds remain expatriated to avoid the taxes. Tax them 95% and Google officially becomes A Cayman Island company.

Yes, we are being played as suckers, but thinking that we can tax ourselves into prosperity is part of the propaganda. If you actually believe this lie, you'll make it worse, not better.

 

Report this comment
#34) On December 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM, DonkeyJunk (27.79) wrote:

This country needs to incentivize positions in engineering and other, more productive fields, not reward the folk who collect millions of dollars to sit on a variety of boards 5 days out of the year. I don't see these people taking any jobs but their own with them when they leave the country to pursue other interests. Imagine how much use a company could make of the money from an exorbitant salary.

Report this comment
#35) On December 24, 2012 at 1:27 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

 Imagine how much use a company could make of the money from an exorbitant salary.

That wouldn't make any diffirence. I ran the numbers on Jeff Imulets 22M last year.

Report this comment
#36) On December 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Donkey you are spot on.  History has proven that when you cap the rich they keep the money in the company or spend it through deductions.  But when you keep their taxes low they are incentivized to squeeze every dime they can which includes outsourching labor.  This is historical.

It isn't about economics, it is about behavior.

Unions didn't kill jobs Chris.  That's the con. The NLRA probably saved this country from turning communist back in the 1930s.

I was listening to Bloomberg this weekend and they were talking about how one company earned 47 million yet the CEO and Board of directors decided to give themselves $10 million worth of bonus's. More than 1/5 th of the income.  The activist shareholder (I didn't catch his name)  wound up booting the CEO and most of the directors out of office.  It goes on all them time.

Report this comment
#37) On December 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

Before we totally failed as an auto industry a car cost $3,000 before we even made it. This was mainly due to the outrageous demands of the unions.

It's easy for any other country to beat us in the auto industry when they have a $3000 head start.

 

Report this comment
#38) On December 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

You also had a basketball player as CEO of GM.  Management screwed that company more than anything.  The Japanese made cars to last.  Detroit believed in built in obsolence.

Report this comment
#39) On December 24, 2012 at 11:29 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Here this is what that clown Wagoner received:

After 32 years at GM, Wagoner retired with an exit package of over $10 million: $1.65 million in benefits per year for his first five years of retirement, $74,030 per year pension for the rest of his life, and a 2.6$ million dollar life insurance policy that can be cashed out at any time.

That is the story time and time again.  Blame the unions so these guys can make millions.

Report this comment
#40) On December 25, 2012 at 12:18 AM, ChrisGraley (29.68) wrote:

GM is still screwed. Same union, same crappy cars. They gotta make up that 3 grand somewhere.

Report this comment
#41) On December 25, 2012 at 7:53 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Well I always had a GM until last year I bought a Nissan because of price and have regretted it ever since.  Never again.  I am sure others will have their testimonials, but as I said earlier I am a  "show me" guy and  hate what I have been shown.

Report this comment
#42) On December 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM, wolfman225 (63.90) wrote:

I realize I'm coming late to this debate, but I found this book review on the Chicago Tribune website:

  http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-73662000/

Since the Trib hardly has the reputation as a right wing rag, maybe you'll be slightly more willing to credit it as a source.

Report this comment
#43) On December 25, 2012 at 11:24 PM, awallejr (76.71) wrote:

Source is not relevant, content is and that article is one man's conclusory opinions as my blog is as well.  It is just a matter of how many people we can convince to agree.

Report this comment
#44) On December 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-gives-raises-biden/2012/12/28/id/469363

Chicago way, just grease some palms and you'll get the compromise...

Report this comment
#45) On December 28, 2012 at 11:25 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-gives-raises-biden/2012/12/28/id/469363

Chicago way, just grease some palms and you'll get the compromise...

Report this comment
#46) On December 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM, devoish (96.42) wrote:

I just thought of this...

In awallejr's economy a New Yorker that wins 100 mil in the lottery will pay the Fed government 95 mil and the state government 8.97 mil and therefore be 3.97 mil in the hole and would have been better off not buying the ticket.

Sounds like booming economy to me.  - ChrisGraley

 FOS as usual. He'll deduct the 8.97 mil in State taxes first and pay 95% on all his remaining earnings that are above 100mil. - Which is none of them. And he'll pay 15% on his earnings below $25,000 just like the rest of us do.

Awallejr,

nice post, nice points. though I think unions were a much better way of defending employment than taxation and spending programs are.

 

Report this comment
#47) On December 29, 2012 at 1:19 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

Over the cliff to Government house we go-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO_84C3fpuI&list=AL94UKMTqg-9DaLAuh5MVwdYlVh18RgeGj

Report this comment
#48) On December 29, 2012 at 2:25 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

Cliff Em' All-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_wGFfrJv4Y

Report this comment
#49) On December 29, 2012 at 2:39 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

hell yeah, the mighty metal one

 

Report this comment
#50) On December 29, 2012 at 3:23 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

^ Awesome :)

Report this comment
#51) On December 29, 2012 at 3:35 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

@HarryCarysGhost

this is my favorite metallica tuneage, whiplash:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPh_9sRJycI

Report this comment
#52) On December 29, 2012 at 4:13 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.59) wrote:

@ NOTvuffettt...

I think we just described that whole fiscal cliff thang,... using metallica songs :)

whiplash rules.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement